-
General Hospital Psychiatry 2021Due to the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), guidance for the use of psychotropic drugs in this context is necessary. We...
OBJECTIVE
Due to the global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), guidance for the use of psychotropic drugs in this context is necessary. We aimed to review clinical evidence regarding the potential toxicity of psychiatric medications in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
A systematic search for all types of empirical studies and reviews in a broad set of electronic databases and trial registries was conducted up to the 15th of August 2020.
RESULTS
We identified 3 case series and 4 single-case reports on the occurrence of toxicity induced by various psychotropic drugs (lithium, n = 2; clozapine, n = 5; risperidone n = 2; haloperidol n = 1; duloxetine, n = 1). In addition, we provide a new case report on the possible precipitation of valproic acid-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy. In most cases, SARS-CoV-2 infection may have precipitated drug toxicity/side effects. The management of toxicity did not diverge from the usually applied principles in the absence of infection.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited available evidence and the recent genomic diversity and evolution of the SARS-CoV-2, it is currently not possible to derive evidence-based recommendations for the use of psychotropic drugs in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nevertheless, we provide some guidance based on the reviewed literature. At the current state of knowledge, there is no contraindication for any psychotropic drug. Caution is warranted regarding the dosing and, in particular, the monitoring of clozapine, lithium and valproate.
Topics: COVID-19; Comorbidity; Humans; Mental Disorders; Psychotropic Drugs
PubMed: 33631694
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2021.02.006 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Anti-Seizure medication (ASM) treatment in patients with BECTS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library,...
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of Anti-Seizure medication (ASM) treatment in patients with BECTS. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG DATA, and China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP) between 1 Jan 1990, and 1 Sep 2021, for randomized controlled studies. Data on seizure freedom rate, rate of treatment withdrawal due to serious adverse events, rate of any adverse events and dropout, 50% remission rate, the proportion of patients whose EEG to be normalized, and improvement in cognitive function were extracted by two authors independently. The pooled data were meta-analyzed using a random effects model. A total of 27 studies evaluating 9 ASMs were included, 19 of which were suitable for meta-analysis. Compared with sulthiame (STM), levetiracetam (LEV) was associated with a higher probability of treatment withdrawal due to serious adverse events [RR = 5.12, 95% CI (1.19, 22.01), = 0.0%], experiencing any adverse events [RR = 5.12, 95% CI (1.19, 22.01)], and dropping out for any reason [RR = 3.17, 95% CI (1.36, 10.11)], while it did not affect the seizure freedom rate [RR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.75, 1.06)]. LEV significantly improved cognitive performance relative to carbamazepine (CBZ) but had no effect on the proportion of any adverse events [RR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.25, 1.59)] and EEG to be normalized [RR = 1.27, 95% CI (0.94, 1.71)]. There was no higher probability of a 50% remission rate when comparing valproic acid (VPA) to LEV [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.57, 1.61)] and oxcarbazepine (OXC) [RR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.31, 1.20)]. In addition, STM was related to a higher probability of EEG normalization than placebo [RR = 4.61, 95% CI (2.12, 10.01)]. The included single studies also provided some evidence for the efficacy and/or tolerability of other ASMs in BECTS, including topiramate, lamotrigine, clobazam, and clonazepam. The risk of bias of the included studies was frequently low or unclear. This study indicated some discrepancies in efficacy and tolerability among ASMs used in patients with BECTS. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ASMs with larger populations are required to ascertain the optimum antiepileptic drug treatment to guide clinicians.
PubMed: 35359874
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.821639 -
Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.
Topics: Adult; Amines; Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Child; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Epilepsies, Partial; Epilepsy; Epilepsy, Generalized; Fructose; Gabapentin; Humans; Isoxazoles; Lamotrigine; Levetiracetam; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxcarbazepine; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Remission Induction; Topiramate; Triazines; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 29243813
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011412.pub3 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2022Epilepsy is a long-term recurrent chronic brain disease that can cause significant emotional burden to the patient and their family, as well as huge economic costs to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epilepsy is a long-term recurrent chronic brain disease that can cause significant emotional burden to the patient and their family, as well as huge economic costs to society. Timely and accurate diagnosis of epilepsy, together with early and standardized treatments can effectively control seizures and restore the patient's quality of life and reduce the economic burden. This meta-analysis examined the efficacy of lamotrigine administration in patients with epilepsy.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and OVID-Medline databases to identify articles related to epilepsy and lamotrigine that were published from the establishment of the database to April 2021. The keywords used for the literature search included "epilepsy", "sodium valproate", "lamotrigine", "effectiveness", and "therapeutic effect". It uses Cochrane review manual 5.3 to evaluate the quality of the included literature and review manager 5.3 software for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 9 studies involving 1,864 patients with epilepsy were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that, after treatment failure with the first drug of valproic acid, the total effective rate of lamotrigine treatment had an odds ratio (OR) of 2.21 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.15 to 4.27 (Z=2.37; P=0.02). The total adverse reaction rate (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.88; Z=2.98; P=0.003) and the improvement rate of epilepsy associated with lamotrigine treatment (OR =4.22; 95% CI: 1.00 to 17.84; Z=1.96; P=0.05) were all significantly higher than that of other drug treatments.
DISCUSSION
A total of 9 articles were included in this meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of lamotrigine in the treatment of epilepsy. The clinical efficacy of lamotrigine addition therapy was found to be superior to lamotrigine replacement therapy, and the incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that of lamotrigine replacement therapy. However, due to the low methodological quality of the included literatures, this conclusion should be further verified using large sample and high-quality randomized double-blinded experiments.
Topics: Epilepsy; Humans; Lamotrigine; Quality of Life; Triazines; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35144403
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-3555 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2022This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
This review was designated to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral ketorolac in treating acute migraine headache.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to January 2021 and identified randomized controlled trials comparing ketorolac to any other medications in treating patients presenting with migraine headache.
RESULTS
Thirteen trials were included in our review, comprising 944 participants. We derived seven comparisons: ketorolac versus phenothiazines, metoclopramide, sumatriptan, dexamethasone, sodium valproate, caffeine, and diclofenac. There were no significant differences in the reduction of pain intensity at 1 h under the comparisons between ketorolac and phenothiazines (standard mean difference [SMD] = 0.09, p = 0.74) or metoclopramide (SMD = 0.02, p = 0.95). We also found no difference in the outcome recurrence of headache (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines (risk ratio [RR] =0.98, p = 0.97)], ability to return to work or usual activity (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 0.64, p = 0.13]), need for rescue medication (ketorolac vs. phenothiazines [RR = 1.72, p = 0.27], ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR 2.20, p = 0.18]), and frequency of adverse effects (ketorolac vs. metoclopramide [RR = 1.07, p = 0.82]). Limited trials suggested that ketorolac offered better pain relief at 1 h compared to sumatriptan and dexamethasone; had lesser frequency of adverse effects than phenothiazines; and was superior to sodium valproate in terms of reduction of pain intensity at 1 h, need for rescue medication, and sustained headache freedom within 24 h.
CONCLUSIONS
Ketorolac may have similar efficacy to phenothiazines and metoclopramide in treating acute migraine headache. Ketorolac may also offer better pain control than sumatriptan, dexamethasone, and sodium valproate. However, given the lack of evidence due to inadequate number of trials available, future studies are warranted.
Topics: Caffeine; Dexamethasone; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketorolac; Metoclopramide; Migraine Disorders; Pain; Phenothiazines; Sumatriptan; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35138658
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14457 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2018. The incidence of seizures following supratentorial craniotomy for non-traumatic pathology has been estimated to be between 15% to 20%; however, the risk of experiencing a seizure appears to vary from 3% to 92% over a five-year period. Postoperative seizures can precipitate the development of epilepsy; seizures are most likely to occur within the first month of cranial surgery. The use of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered pre- or postoperatively to prevent seizures following cranial surgery has been investigated in a number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of AEDs when used prophylactically in people undergoing craniotomy and to examine which AEDs are most effective.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the following databases on 29 September 2019: Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of people with no history of epilepsy who were undergoing craniotomy for either therapeutic or diagnostic reasons. We included trials with adequate randomisation methods and concealment; these could either be blinded or unblinded parallel trials. We did not stipulate a minimum treatment period, and we included trials using active drugs or placebo as a control group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors (JW, JG, YD) independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements through discussion. Outcomes investigated included the number of participants experiencing seizures (early (occurring within first week following craniotomy), and late (occurring after first week following craniotomy)), the number of deaths and the number of people experiencing disability and adverse effects. Due to the heterogeneous nature of the trials, we did not combine data from the included trials in a meta-analysis; we presented the findings of the review in narrative format. Visual comparisons of outcomes are presented in forest plots.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 RCTs (N = 1815), which were published between 1983 and 2015. Three trials compared a single AED (phenytoin) with placebo or no treatment. One, three-armed trial compared two AEDs (phenytoin, carbamazepine) with no treatment. A second three-armed trial compared phenytoin, phenobarbital with no treatment. Of these five trials comparing AEDs with placebo or no treatment, two trials reported a statistically significant advantage for AED treatment compared to controls for early seizure occurrence; all other comparisons showed no clear or statistically significant differences between AEDs and control treatment. None of the trials that were head-to-head comparisons of AEDs (phenytoin versus sodium valproate, phenytoin versus phenobarbital, levetiracetam versus phenytoin, zonisamide versus phenobarbital) reported any statistically significant differences between treatments for either early or late seizure occurrence. Only five trials reported incidences of death. One trial reported statistically significantly fewer deaths in the carbamazepine and no-treatment groups compared with the phenytoin group after 24 months of treatment, but not after six months of treatment. Incidences of adverse effects of treatment were poorly reported; however, three trials did show that significantly more adverse events occurred on phenytoin compared to valproate, placebo, or no treatment. No trials reported any results relating to functional outcomes such as disability. We considered the evidence to be of low certainty for all reported outcomes due to methodological issues and variability of comparisons made in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited, low-certainly evidence to suggest that AED treatment administered prophylactically is either effective or not effective in the prevention of postcraniotomy (early or late) seizures. The current evidence base is limited due to the different methodologies employed in the trials and inconsistencies in the reporting of outcomes including deaths and adverse events. Further evidence from good-quality, contemporary trials is required in order to assess the clinical effectiveness of prophylactic AED treatment compared to placebo or no treatment, or other AEDs in preventing postcraniotomy seizures in this select group of patients.
Topics: Anticonvulsants; Carbamazepine; Craniotomy; Humans; Isoxazoles; Levetiracetam; Phenobarbital; Phenytoin; Piracetam; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Valproic Acid; Zonisamide
PubMed: 32343399
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007286.pub5 -
Journal of Psychiatric Research Sep 2022Preliminary data suggest that patients with COVID-19 may experience psychiatric symptoms, including psychosis. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Preliminary data suggest that patients with COVID-19 may experience psychiatric symptoms, including psychosis. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the concurrence of new-onset psychosis or exacerbation of clinically stable psychosis through case reports and case series.
METHODS
Six databases were searched, followed by an electronic and manual search of the relevant articles. Studies were identified using predetermined eligibility criteria. We evaluated the demographic characteristics, clinical history, course of illness, management, and prognosis of the patients in these studies.
RESULTS
Case reports and case series, altogether consisting of 57 unique cases were included. The mean patient age for onset of psychotic symptoms was 43.4 years for men and 40.3 years for women. About 69% of patients had no prior history of psychiatric disorders. Most patients had mild COVID-19-related symptoms, with only 15 (26.3%) presenting with moderate to severe COVID-19-related disease and complications. The most commonly reported psychotic symptoms were delusions and hallucinations. Patients with psychotic symptoms were treated with antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, valproic acid, and electroconvulsive treatment. In 36 cases, psychotic symptoms resolved completely or improved significantly. Ten cases had partial improvement with residual psychotic symptoms, and one patient died due to cardiac arrest.
CONCLUSION
Most patients responded to a low-to-moderate dose of antipsychotics with a quick recovery. However, the residual psychiatric symptoms highlight the need for careful monitoring and longer follow-up. Clinicians should be mindful of the occurrence of psychosis due to COVID-19 infection in a subset of COVID-19 patients that can be misdiagnosed as a psychotic disorder alone.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; COVID-19; Female; Hallucinations; Humans; Male; Pandemics; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 35797814
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.06.041 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and...
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2019. Absence seizures (AS) are brief epileptic seizures which present in childhood and adolescence. Depending on clinical features and electroencephalogram (EEG) findings they are divided into typical, atypical absences, and absences with special features. Typical absences are characterised by sudden loss of awareness and an EEG typically shows generalised spike wave discharges at three cycles per second. Ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine are currently used to treat absence seizures. This review aims to determine the best choice of antiepileptic drug for children and adolescents with AS.
OBJECTIVES
To review the evidence for the effects of ethosuximide, valproate and lamotrigine as treatments for children and adolescents with absence seizures (AS), when compared with placebo or each other.
SEARCH METHODS
For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web, 22 September 2020) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September 21, 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised, controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialized Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy. No language restrictions were imposed. In addition, we contacted Sanofi Winthrop, Glaxo Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) and Parke Davis (now Pfizer), manufacturers of sodium valproate, lamotrigine and ethosuximide respectively.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised parallel group monotherapy or add-on trials which include a comparison of any of the following in children or adolescents with AS: ethosuximide, sodium valproate, lamotrigine, or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Outcome measures were: 1. proportion of individuals seizure free at one, three, six, 12 and 18 months post randomisation; 2. individuals with a 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency; 3. normalisation of EEG and/or negative hyperventilation test; and 4. adverse effects. Data were independently extracted by two review authors. Results are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We used GRADE quality assessment criteria to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the outcomes derived from all included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
On the basis of our selection criteria, we included no new studies in the present review. Eight small trials (total number of participants: 691) were included from the earlier review. Six of them were of poor methodological quality (unclear or high risk of bias) and seven recruited less than 50 participants. There are no placebo-controlled trials for ethosuximide or valproate, and hence, no evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support a specific effect on AS for either of these two drugs. Due to the differing methodologies used in the trials comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and valproate, we thought it inappropriate to undertake a meta-analysis. One large randomised, parallel double-blind controlled trial comparing ethosuximide, lamotrigine and sodium valproate in 453 children with newly diagnosed childhood absence epilepsy found that at 12 months, seizure freedom was higher in patients taking ethosuximide (70/154, 45%) than in patients taking lamotrigine (31/146, 21%; P < 0.001), with no difference between valproate (64/146, 44%) and ethosuximide (70/154, 45%; P > 0.05). In this study, the frequency of treatment failures due to intolerable adverse events was significantly different among the treatment groups, with the largest proportion of adverse events in the valproic acid group (48/146, 33%) compared to the ethosuximide (38/154, 25%) and the lamotrigine (29/146, 20%) groups (P < 0.037). Overall, this large study demonstrates the superior effectiveness of ethosuximide and valproic acid compared to lamotrigine as initial monotherapy aimed to control seizures without intolerable adverse effects in children with childhood absence epilepsy. This study provided high certainty of the evidence for outcomes for which data were available. However, the certainty of the evidence provided by the other included studies was low, primarily due to risk of bias and imprecise results because of the small sample sizes. Hence, conclusions regarding the efficacy of ethosuximide, valproic acid and lamotrigine derive mostly from this single study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review was published, we have found no new studies. Hence, the conclusions remain the same as the previous update. With regards to both efficacy and tolerability, ethosuximide represents the optimal initial empirical monotherapy for children and adolescents with AS. However, if absence and generalised tonic-clonic seizures coexist, valproate should be preferred, as ethosuximide is probably inefficacious on tonic-clonic seizures.
Topics: Adolescent; Anticonvulsants; Child; Epilepsy, Absence; Ethosuximide; Female; Humans; Lamotrigine; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Seizures; Treatment Failure; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 33475151
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003032.pub5 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2020Epimutations secondary to gene-environment interactions have a key role in the pathophysiology of major psychiatric disorders. and evidence suggest that mood...
BACKGROUND
Epimutations secondary to gene-environment interactions have a key role in the pathophysiology of major psychiatric disorders. and evidence suggest that mood stabilizers can potentially reverse epigenetic deregulations found in patients with schizophrenia or mood disorders through mechanisms that are not yet fully understood. However, their activity on epigenetic processes has made them a research target for therapeutic approaches.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE for studies investigating the specific epigenetic changes induced by non-antipsychotic mood stabilizers (valproate, lithium, lamotrigine, and carbamazepine) in animal models, human cell lines, or patients with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder. Each paper was reviewed for the nature of research, the species and tissue examined, sample size, mood stabilizer, targeted gene, epigenetic changes found, and associated psychiatric disorder. Every article was appraised for quality using a modified published process and those who met a quality score of moderate or high were included.
RESULTS
A total of 2,429 records were identified; 1,956 records remained after duplicates were removed and were screened title, abstract and keywords; 129 records were selected for full-text screening and a remaining of 38 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis. Valproate and lithium were found to induce broader epigenetic changes through different mechanisms, mainly DNA demethylation and histones acetylation. There was less literature and hence smaller effects attributable to lamotrigine and carbamazepine could be associated overall with the small number of studies on these agents. Findings were congruent across sample types.
CONCLUSIONS
An advanced understanding of the specific epigenetic changes induced by classic mood stabilizers in patients with major psychiatric disorders will facilitate personalized interventions. Further related drug discovery should target the induction of selective chromatin remodeling and gene-specific expression effects.
PubMed: 32390836
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00467 -
Medicine Aug 2022Current research has found contradictory results on the treatment of magnesium valproate (VPM) in patients with dementia (PwD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current research has found contradictory results on the treatment of magnesium valproate (VPM) in patients with dementia (PwD).
OBJECTIVES
Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VPM in the adjuvant treatment of PwD.
PURPOSE
Current research has found contradictory results on the treatment of VPM in PwD. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VPM in the adjuvant treatment of PwD.
METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Embase, China National Knowledge (CNKI), and Wan Fang databases were researched to gather relevant data on magnesium valproate assistant therapy for patients with dementia (PwD) by using medical subject headings and term words.
RESULTS
After the final screening, 22 RCT studies (a total of 1899 participants) were included in this meta-analysis, which compared VPM adjuvant treatment with antidementia or psychotropic drug monotherapy. Significant differences were found in the scores on mini-mental state examination (P = .028), Alzheimer disease assessment scale cognitive subscale (P < .05), Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Rating Scale (P < .05), behavioral pathology in Alzheimer disease rating scale (P = .001), activities of daily living (P < .05), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (P < .05). Besides, the levels of inflammatory factors including IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α were significantly lower than those in the monotherapy group (P < .05). While there was no increase in the incidence of adverse events (P = .383), VPM as an assistant therapy is generally well tolerated in PwD.
CONCLUSION
By meta-analysis, evidence was found to support VPM additional used for the treatment of cognitive function, psychiatric symptoms, or disease improvement in PwD. VPM may be a potential drug to aid in the treatment of dementia patients. However, there was lack of enough evidence to classification of dementia severity in our inclusion study. More research is still needed, including clinical trials evaluating VPM as a complementary therapy.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition; Humans; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Valproic Acid
PubMed: 35945786
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029642